Case 1308661/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Gittins v Medivet Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308661/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Gittins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 February 2025, Employment Judge T Brown heard the respondent's application for each of the claimant's complaints to be struck out, alternatively for a deposit order to be made. The tribunal refused that application. The written record does not contain any merits findings on the underlying complaints themselves.
The decision records that reasons were given orally and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded or assessed in the written record, and no substantive findings are recorded beyond the refusal of the respondent's application.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written record only states that the respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively seek a deposit order against, each of the claimant's complaints was refused. It does not determine the underlying discrimination complaint on the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record only states that the respondent's application to strike out, or alternatively seek a deposit order against, each of the claimant's complaints was refused. It does not determine the underlying unfair dismissal complaint on the merits. | Other | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.